Jump to content

Idaho Bishop Released, Charged with Abuse


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

To be clear, smac didn’t say this, he was quoting the LDS spokesperson.

This sure have could have been worded better. He should not have been released to focus on his defense, but should have been released because of the allegations. It sounds like the release was to help him, rather than to protect others.

From ksl, a slightly fuller quote…seems likely to be a prepared comment Imo:

Quote

"The church reported these allegations to law enforcement as soon as they were brought to the attention of local leaders and the individual was immediately released from his leadership position to allow him to focus on his legal defense," church spokesman Sam Penrod said in a statement. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind and is awaiting the outcome of this case in the legal system before commenting any further."

So it appears to be a poorly worded statement.  
 

https://www.ksl.com/article/50243084/former-bishop-accused-of-abusing-teen-at-girls-camp

Been changed from a warrant to a summons though. Wonder why. 
 

Quote

James Douglas Robinson, 63, was charged Thursday in Duchesne County's 8th District Court with forcible sexual abuse, a second-degree felony. An arrest warrant was originally submitted to the court for a judge to sign. But Thursday afternoon, it was determined that the affidavit "does not contain sufficient information to support the issuance of a warrant," according to court records. Instead, a summons was issued for Robinson to make his initial appearance in court on Oct. 26.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was a quote, but we don’t know, I believe, if it was from a prepared statement or response to a question that referenced perhaps whether the Church would help with his legal defense or not or something else that would make attaching that part reasonable. I don’t remember seeing anything like it before.  
 

Smac, you preoccupied or something?  Lots of typos (repetitions and such), which is unusual for you…

I was using the text-to-speech feature on my phone, and in a rush.  Any time I don't use my normal signoff ("Thanks, -Smac") you can bet I am in a rush or else speaking into my phone.

That said, I generally have a surprising (to me) number of typos.  Most of my posts are fairly hurried, and are written in a stream-of-consciousness way, and without review for errors.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

From ksl, a slightly fuller quote…seems likely to be a prepared comment Imo:

Quote

"The church reported these allegations to law enforcement as soon as they were brought to the attention of local leaders and the individual was immediately released from his leadership position to allow him to focus on his legal defense," church spokesman Sam Penrod said in a statement. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind and is awaiting the outcome of this case in the legal system before commenting any further."

So it appears to be a poorly worded statement.  

Huh.  So it did come from the Church (the spokesman, anyway).  I stand corrected.

Perhaps it was intended to mitigate against any assumption or inference that the Church is presuming him guilty of the charges.  That is, the Church released him not because he is presumptively guilty, but because he can't function as a bishop while preparing to defend himself against serious criminal charges.

This may be corroborated by last bit of the statement, that the Church "is awaiting the outcome of this case in the legal system before commenting any further."  The Church does not want to be seen as throwing him under the bus, but nor does it want to be seen as being cavalier or indifferent to the seriousness of the charges.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50243084/former-bishop-accused-of-abusing-teen-at-girls-camp

Been changed from a warrant to a summons though. Wonder why. 

From the article: 

Quote

An arrest warrant was originally submitted to the court for a judge to sign. But Thursday afternoon, it was determined that the affidavit "does not contain sufficient information to support the issuance of a warrant," according to court records. Instead, a summons was issued for Robinson to make his initial appearance in court on Oct. 26.

Here's a law firm's website that describes the difference between a warrant and a summons in a criminal context:

Quote

Criminal Case Process in Utah - Arrest / Citation / Summons

If a police criminal investigation yields sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge against a defendant, the police have several options by which they can proceed. In any of these circumstances, an experienced criminal defense attorney can play a vital role in protecting the defendant's rights. Contact us today to schedule an initial consultation with Utah criminal defense attorney Stephen Howard.

 

Warrantless Arrest

In some circumstances, a police officer is allowed to make an arrest without a warrant. These circumstances include the following: the crime was committed in the presence of the officer; the officer has reasonable cause to believe that a felony or class A misdemeanor has been committed; or the officer has reasonable cause to believe that any crime has been committed and that the suspect will flee or attempt to conceal himself, destroy or conceal evidence of the crime, or injure another person or cause damage to another person's property.

 

Arrest with Warrant

If the above circumstances do not exist, a police officer may be required to obtain a warrant before making an arrest. Typically, the arrest warrant will be issued by the court following the filing of formal charges. In making a request for an arrest warrant, many prosecutors will make a perfunctory recitation along the lines of the following: "There is reason to believe that the above-named defendant will not appear upon a summons." Many judges do not require any specific supporting reasons for the "belief" but will instead issue the warrant as requested.

 

Citation

In some cases, a police officer may issue a citation to the person who is accused of a crime. The citation will typically list the sections of the Utah State Code or of the local municipal code that are alleged to have been violated. Sometimes the citation will list the offense by its common name rather than citing the code section. In minor misdemeanor and traffic cases, the police officer's citation can serve as the charging document when it is filed with the court. But a defendant has the right to require a formal "information" to be filed with the court. A formal information must be filed by the prosecuting attorney, and requires the prosecutor to review the case to determine which, if any, charges are appropriate.

 

Summons

If a person is not immediately arrested following the alleged commission of a crime, the court has the option of issuing an arrest warrant or sending a summons to the defendant. As noted above, an arrest warrant is an order to any peace officer finding the defendant to arrest and bring the defendant defendant before the court to face formal charges. A summons instead provides notice to the defendant that the charges have been filed, and provides instructions to the defendant regarding where and when to appear for court. A summons may also provide instructions to the defendant to appear at the jail for a "book and release" process.

Many prosecutors will by default ask the court to issue an arrest warrant rather than send a summons. But many prosecutors can be persuaded to instead request a summons if the prosecutor is convinced that the defendant will appear voluntarily in court. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

I know the difference, but I am wondering why it in this case was first decided that a warrant was justified from the affidavit, but later minds were changed. I wonder if there was additional information originally that pushed towards a warrant and an arrest that was later found not to be fully established or someone just took a better look at the affidavit and recognized it didn’t meet a standard and was therefore changed to a summons. 
 

From the wording (“An arrest warrant was originally submitted to the court for a judge to sign. But Thursday afternoon, it was determined that the affidavit "does not contain sufficient information to support the issuance of a warrant," according to court records”) it looks like it was simply reported before the judge got to it and it was their appraisal of the application for a warrant that judged it lacking, that evidence provided in the affidavit wasn’t sufficient. 

So may not be atypical at all, just due to reporters not waiting (understandable if it is unknown how long it is going to take the judge to get to it, especially if not unusual to be a number of hours).
 

Wonder how often applications for a warrant for arrest are downgraded by the judge to a summons only. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 9/17/2021 at 8:50 AM, Analytics said:

I am troubled by the free agency argument in your second point.

Imagine your daughter was just abducted and dragged to a dark alley. Something unspeakable is about to happen to her. 

Imagine that at that very moment, I'm walking by. In this fantasy, I'm 6'5" and 225 pounds of solid muscle. I'm an 8th degree Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu black belt and have been in the Special Forces for 20 years. And, of course, my loaded Sig Sauer P226 is close at hand. I could easily save your daughter. There would be no risk to me. It wouldn't even be inconvenient. 

If your daughter cried to me for help, would I be justified in saying the following? "What's happening to you breaks my heart. It really does. But if I were to help you, that would be interfering with your abductor's free agency. God could help you even more easily than I could, but He respects your abductor's free agency just as much as I do."

 

Of course not, because you also have free agency and can intervene if you choose. God could even help prompt you to be in that place at the right time, ready to intervene, to help facilitate you making that choice.

If God is going to judge someone justly, He has to let them choose. You, on the other hand, do not.

Link to comment
On 9/17/2021 at 5:28 PM, rongo said:

In my case, I believe in limited omniscience and limited omnipotence, not TULIP absolute omniscience and omnipotence. I also favor the Skousen eternal intelligences explanation for the why of the plan of salvation (and why it couldn't be any other way, and is what has always been done before, worlds without end). For me, then, it's not enough for God to "know the heart" of each person and have that be enough. That's like law enforcement in Minority Report punishing criminals for crimes they haven't committed, but are going to commit. With the source of God's power being the honor the eternal intelligences have for Him (and absolute faith He would never do anything unjust), judging people for having a "black heart" without them doing any "black-hearted" things would be cause for complaints about unjustness

I don't personally believe God would put a person in a position to commit atrocities so that they could repent (say, a bishop who will abuse children). Perish the thought! 

It is extremely sad. I've been thinking about suffering in general over the millennia --- not just modern sex crimes. It's mind-boggling how some of our brothers and sisters who kept their first estate act when the veil of forgetfulness is upon them in mortality. That could only be shown to everyone (including themselves) on the mortal stage, with the veil. I don't think any one of them would believe it if they were told that in the pre-existence. 

I think we've known more about the pre-existence in the past, but we as an institutional church have jettisoned some of it in favor of ignorance and ambiguity for PR/PC reasons --- while trying to keep a lot of it to believe that we are Warriors "held in reserve," saved for Saturday. :) I also don't think He has made it challenging to understand Him --- I think modern sensibilities and philosophical trends make past explanations and philosophies harder for people to accept --- and not because the old explanations are dumb and the new ones are more enlightened and rational. Satan knows what he's doing, and is effective at trying to sandbag as many people in this time as possible. Unbelief and skepticism are the default setting in our day, and that informs age old problems like the problem of evil. 

Thank you for your response. I always appreciate reading your perspective so when I push back, I hope you realize it is with respect.

1- I think I can get on board with a limited omniscience/omnipotence view. It works well in a deistic paradigm

2- The scriptures are full of scriptures about how God knows our hearts. If a man looks upon a woman to lust after her he has already committed adultery in his heart. To some degree at least even the entertaining of sinful thoughts is itself sinful. If a person who hadn't physically committed adultery is still guilty of adultery then it would seem God is most interested in the heart of the person, not simply the actions carried out.

3- It sounds like you are suggesting the church is in some level of apostacy from gospel truths. Or perhaps you believe God commanded the church to jettison some of the truths previously known.

4- Can you imagine communicating with your children in a way that a. They can't understand what you are saying b. they often don't recognize you're communicating at all  c. you communicate through a 3rd party they don't personally know to then tell your children what you want them to know  ?

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thank you for your response. I always appreciate reading your perspective so when I push back, I hope you realize it is with respect.

Of course! You are also among the more stimulating posters here, even when we don't agree. 

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- The scriptures are full of scriptures about how God knows our hearts. If a man looks upon a woman to lust after her he has already committed adultery in his heart. To some degree at least even the entertaining of sinful thoughts is itself sinful. If a person who hadn't physically committed adultery is still guilty of adultery then it would seem God is most interested in the heart of the person, not simply the actions carried out.

He does indeed know our hearts, and the higher law of our thoughts and desires (as taught in the Sermon on the Mount and to the Nephites) was instituted by Christ. But, I don't believe that God judges thoughts and desires either until the thought actually happens. That is, I don't think it's like the Precogs on Minority Report, knowing people will commit very specific crimes at very specific times because He knows their hearts. 

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- It sounds like you are suggesting the church is in some level of apostacy from gospel truths. Or perhaps you believe God commanded the church to jettison some of the truths previously known.

Neither. I believe the keys are still there. I obviously am not a fan of the "disavowal" of certain things (which are also not claimed to be revelation, but rather, anonymous essays outsourced and ghost-written by scholars) for PR/PC reasons, but as I've noted many times before (and which chagrins those who want the Church to be more assertive about it), I think it's significant that room has clearly been left for people to continue believing what was formerly taught. I think that's intentional, and I think it shows the needle the Brethren are trying to thread as Church members mirror the polarization in society at large. 

I don't believe that God commanded the Church to jettison previously known truths. Where this has the appearance of happening, I think it fits within God not remote-controlling His leaders and leaving them room to exercise their agency (this fits within your deism model). Obviously, if they go too far, God would step in and correct it (I'm with @JLHPROF in believing this will happen at some point with temple items that have been removed, for example).

I do think that the general decline in the Church is the real-time fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled, and the sunset of the Gentile phase of the Restoration (northern European dominated) and the rise of Judah and the remnant of Lehi (as foretold in the Book of Mormon). I think the measures that are being implemented that frustrate Boomers like me (honorary --- I'm only 46) that are meant to stop the bleeding among GenZ and Millennials won't ultimately succeed in doing that, and we could have held firm with "traditional explanations" (ultimately the same result, either way). But, I don't think God is angry with His leaders for following their own lights in these efforts. 

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

4- Can you imagine communicating with your children in a way that a. They can't understand what you are saying b. they often don't recognize you're communicating at all  c. you communicate through a 3rd party they don't personally know to then tell your children what you want them to know  ?

No, I can't. I also don't think God's communications to His children (LDS and not) are as hopelessly not understood (from God's end) or perceived (from our end) as that. I think it's a symptom of the specific currents we're swimming against in modern society (including in the Church). 

I do agree that how some members explain it (in trying to solve "problem of evil" challenges) paint God this way, but I don't think it's how He is or how He has to be. I think it's more of a problem on our end. 

Link to comment
On 9/18/2021 at 12:34 PM, Calm said:

I know the difference, but I am wondering why it in this case was first decided that a warrant was justified from the affidavit, but later minds were changed. I wonder if there was additional information originally that pushed towards a warrant and an arrest that was later found not to be fully established or someone just took a better look at the affidavit and recognized it didn’t meet a standard and was therefore changed to a summons. 

From the wording (“An arrest warrant was originally submitted to the court for a judge to sign. But Thursday afternoon, it was determined that the affidavit "does not contain sufficient information to support the issuance of a warrant," according to court records”) it looks like it was simply reported before the judge got to it and it was their appraisal of the application for a warrant that judged it lacking, that evidence provided in the affidavit wasn’t sufficient. 

So may not be atypical at all, just due to reporters not waiting (understandable if it is unknown how long it is going to take the judge to get to it, especially if not unusual to be a number of hours).

Wonder how often applications for a warrant for arrest are downgraded by the judge to a summons only. 

I suspect that the prosecutor applied to the court for an arrest warrant, using information provided by law enforcement.  I further think that the judge found the provided information was not sufficient to justify an arrest warrant, but was sufficient to justify a summons.

I don't work in criminal law, so I don't have a good feel for the nuances and subtleties.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 9/17/2021 at 4:24 PM, Stargazer said:

... It seems there was a man walking down a street when he spied a young boy digging two small holes in his front yard. By the time he reached the boy's yard, the boy had just finished filling one hole with water, but left the other one dry. The man asked him, "What are you doing?" To which the boy replied "I'm baptizing my cat." The man was puzzled so asked why the boy had dug two holes but filled only one with water. The answer was: "Well, first I baptize him in the water, and then in the hole he goes."

 

"In the hole he goes" = "Holy Ghost"?  Oooooh-kay! :o :blink: ;) :D :rofl:

Some puns are good because they're so ... bad.

Did you hear the one about the pun contest in which ten puns were entered ... but these puns were awful ... horrible ... I mean really bad.  So which pun won?  Well, no pun in ten did.  [Badum-pum Psssssssh!]  Thanks, you're a great crowd!  I'll be here all week.  Try the chicken!  It's delicious!

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

There were a few bishops in the news last week being arrested for sexual assault.  Was this the one who assaulted a girl at girls camp or a different one?

this one was different

Link to comment

None of this was life threatening, nor did any of it involve predatory behavior by someone else, so I'm sure there will be those who dismiss it, but I have experienced both the "God-intervened/Did-I-not-speak-peace-to-your-mind?" moments and the "Where-was-God-when-I-needed-Him-most?" moments.  I wasn't particularly different, less faithful, or disobedient when I experienced the latter, nor was I particularly different, more faithful, or more obedient when I experienced the former.  I have pleaded for help and answers regarding certain aspects of my life and yet ... strangely ... God seems ... stubbornly ... silent.

T'is a puzzle, wrapped in an conundrum, wrapped in an enigma.  Essentially, I think God has told me, "Look, Ken.  If you want to credit [or to weigh] our Where-was-I-when-you-needed-Me-most moments more than you credit [or than you weigh] our Did-I-not-speak-Peace-to-your-mind moments, absolutely.  You're absolutely free to do that ... but that is your choice.  It's entirely up to you."

Link to comment
1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

There were a few bishops in the news last week being arrested for sexual assault. 

"A few" as in . . . two?

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

Was this the one who assaulted a girl at girls camp or a different one?

The OP pertained to a bishop in Idaho.  I also cited a news item about a separate bishop in Utah who is charged with the girls camp allegation.

Have there been other news items?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...